Wireless expert Jim Geier explains how the lack of standards for wireless networking prevented its widespread implementation in the 1990’s. In response to lacking standards, the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) developed the first internationally recognized wireless LAN standard: IEEE 802.11. This sample chapter from Wireless LANs reviews several aspects of this standard.

This chapter is from the book

This chapter is from the book

The Importance of Standards

Vendors and some end users initially expected markets to dive head first into
implementing wireless networks. Markets did not respond as predicted, and flat
sales growth of wireless networking components prevailed through most of the
1990s. Relatively low data rates, high prices, and especially the lack of
standards kept many end users from purchasing the wire-free forms of media.

For those having applications suitable for lower data rates and enough cost
savings to warrant purchasing wireless connections, the only choice before 1998
was to install proprietary hardware to satisfy requirements. As a result, some
organizations today still have proprietary wireless networks for which you have
to replace both hardware and software to be compliant with the IEEE 802.11
standard. In response to lacking standards, the Institute for Electrical and
Electronic Engineers (IEEE) developed the first internationally recognized
wireless LAN standard: IEEE 802.11.

Types of Standards

There are two main types of standards: official and public. An official
standard is published and known to the public, but it is controlled by an
official standards organization, such as IEEE. Government or industry
consortiums normally sponsor official standards groups. Official standards
organizations generally ensure coordination at both the international and
domestic level.

A public standard is similar to an official standard, except it is
controlled by a private organization, such as the Wireless LAN Interoperability
Forum. Public standards, often called de facto standards, are common
practices that have not been produced or accepted by an official standards
organization. These standards, such as TCP/IP, are the result of widespread
proliferation. In some cases, public standards that proliferate, such as the
original Ethernet, eventually pass through standards organizations and become
official standards.

Companies should strive to adopt standards and recommended products within
their organizations for all aspects of information systems. What type of
standards should you use? For most cases, focus on the use of an official
standard if one is available and proliferating. This will help ensure widespread
acceptance and longevity of your wireless network implementation. If no official
standard is suitable, a public standard would be a good choice. In fact, a
public standard can often respond faster to changes in market needs because it
usually has less organizational overhead for making changes. Be sure to avoid
non-standard or proprietary system components, unless there are no suitable
standards available.

Case Study 3.1:

802.11 Versus Proprietary Standards

A large retail chain based in Sacramento, California, had requirements to
implement a wireless network to provide mobility within its 10 warehouses
located all over the U.S. The application called for clerks within the warehouse
to use new handheld wireless data collectors that perform inventory management
functions.

The company, already having one vendor's data collection devices
(we'll call these brand X), decided to use that vendor's brand Y
proprietary wireless data collectors and its proprietary wireless network (the
vendor didn't offer an 802.11-compliant solution). This decision eliminated
the need to work with additional vendors for the new handheld devices and the
wireless network.

A year passed after the installation, and enhancement requirements began to
pour in for additional mobile appliances that were not available from the brand
X vendor. This forced the company to consider the purchase of new brand Z
appliances from a different vendor. The problem, though, was that the brand Z
appliances, which were 802.11-compliant, didn't interoperate with the
installed proprietary brand Y wireless network. Because of the cost associated
with replacing its network with one that was 802.11-compliant (the brand Y
wireless network had no upgrade path to 802.11), the company couldn't
implement the new enhancement cost effectively.

The company could have eliminated the problem of not being able to implement
the new enhancement if it would have implemented the initial system with
802.11-compliant network components because most vendors offer products that are
compatible with 802.11, but not all the proprietary networks. The result would
have been the ability to consider multiple vendors for a wider selection of
appliances.

Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)

The IEEE is a non-profit professional organization founded by a handful of
engineers in 1884 for the purpose of consolidating ideas dealing with
electrotechnology. The IEEE plays a significant role in publishing technical
works, sponsoring conferences and seminars, accreditation, and standards
development. With regard to LANs, the IEEE has produced some very popular and
widely used standards. For example, the majority of LANs in the world use
network interface cards based on the IEEE 802.3 (ethernet) and IEEE 802.5 (token
ring) standards.

Before someone can develop an IEEE standard, he must submit a Project
Authorization Request (PAR) to the IEEE Standards Board. If the board approves
the PAR, IEEE establishes a working group to develop the standard. Members of
the working groups serve voluntarily and without compensation, and they are not
necessarily members of the institute. The working group begins by writing a
draft standard and then submits the draft to a balloting group of selected IEEE
members for review and approval. The ballot group consists of the
standard's developers, potential users, and other people having a general
interest.

Before publication, the IEEE Standards Board performs a review of the Final
Draft Standard and then considers approval of the standard. The resulting
standard represents a consensus of broad expertise from within IEEE and other
related organizations. All IEEE standards are reviewed at least once every five
years for revision or reaffirmation.

NOTE

In May 1991, a group led by Victor Hayes submitted a Project Authorization
Request (PAR) to IEEE to initiate the 802.11 working group. Hayes became
chairman of the working group and led the standards effort to its completion in
June 1997.

Benefits of the 802.11 Standard

The benefits of using standards such as those published by IEEE are great.
The following sections explain the benefits of complying with standards,
especially IEEE 802.11.

Appliance Interoperability

Compliance with the IEEE 802.11 standard makes possible interoperability
between multiple-vendor appliances and the chosen wireless network type. This
means you can purchase an 802.11-compliant scanner from Symbol and a Pathfinder
Ultra handheld scanner/printer from Monarch Marking Systems and they will both
interoperate within an equivalent 802.11 wireless network, assuming 802.11
configuration parameters are set equally in both devices. Standard compliance
increases price competition and enables companies to develop wireless LAN
components with lower research and development costs. This enables a greater
number of smaller companies to develop wireless components.

As shown in Figure 3.1,
appliance interoperability prevents dependence on a single vendor for appliances.
Without a standard, for example, a company having a non-standard proprietary
network would be dependent on purchasing only appliances that operate on that
particular network. With an 802.11-compliant wireless network, you can use any
equivalent 802.11-compliant appliance. Because most vendors have migrated their
products to 802.11, you have a much greater selection of appliances for 802.11
standard networks.

Fast Product Development

The 802.11 standard is a well-tested blueprint that developers can use to
implement wireless devices. The use of standards decreases the learning curve
required to understand specific technologies because the standard-forming group
has already invested the time to smooth out any wrinkles in the implementation
of the applicable technology. This leads to the development of products in much
less time.

Stable Future Migration

Compliance with standards helps protect investments and avoids legacy systems
that must be completely replaced in the future as those proprietary products
become obsolete. The evolution of wireless LANs should occur in a fashion
similar to 802.3, Ethernet. Initially, Ethernet began as a 10Mbps standard using
coaxial cable media. The IEEE 802.3 working group enhanced the standard over the
years by adding twisted-pair, optical fiber cabling, and 100Mbps and 1000Mbps
data rates.

Just as IEEE 802.3 did, the 802.11 working group recognizes the investments
organizations make in network infrastructure and the importance in providing
migration paths that maximize the installed base of hardware. As a result,
802.11 will certainly ensure stable migration from existing wireless LANs as
higher-performance wireless networking technologies become available.

Price Reductions

High costs have always plagued the wireless LAN industry; however, prices
have dropped significantly as more vendors and end users comply with 802.11. One
of the reasons for lower prices is that vendors no longer need to develop and
support lower-quantity proprietary subcomponents, cutting-edge design,
manufacturing, and support costs. Ethernet went through a similar lowering of
prices as more and more companies began complying with the 802.3 standard.

Avoiding Silos

Over the past couple of decades, MIS organizations have had a difficult time
maintaining control of network implementations. The introduction of PCs, LANs,
and visual-based development tools has made it much easier for non-MIS
organizations, such as finance and manufacturing departments, to deploy their
own applications. One part of the company, for example, may purchase a wireless
network from one vendor, then another part of the company may buy a different
wireless network. As a result, silos--non-interoperable systems--appear
within the company, making it very difficult for MIS personnel to plan and
support compatible systems. Some people refer to these silos as
stovepipes.

Acquisitions bring dissimilar systems together as well. One company with a
proprietary system may purchase another having a different proprietary system,
resulting in non-interoperability. Figure
3.2 illustrates the features of standards that minimize the occurrence of
silos.

Figure 3.2 Compliance
with the IEEE 802.11 standard can minimize the implementation of silos.

Case Study 3.2:

Problems with Mixed Standards

A company located in Barcelona, Spain, specializes in the resale of
women's clothes. This company, having a MIS group without much control over
the implementation of distributed networks in major parts of the company, has
projects underway to implement wireless networks for an inventory application
and a price-marking application.

Non-MIS project managers located in different parts of the company lead these
projects. They have little desire to coordinate their projects with MIS because
of past difficulties. As a result, both project managers end up implementing
non-compatible proprietary wireless networks to satisfy their networking
requirements.

The project managers install both systems: one that covers the sales floor
space of their 300 stores (for price marking) and one that encompasses 10
warehouses (for doing inventory functions). Even though the systems are not
compatible, all is fine for the users operating the autonomous systems.

The problems with this system architecture, though, are the difficulty in
providing operational support and inflexibility. The company must maintain
purchasing and warranty contracts with two different wireless network vendors,
service personnel will need to acquire and maintain an understanding of the
operation of two networks, and the company will not be able to share appliances
and wireless network components between the warehouses and the stores.

As a result, the silos in this case make the networks more expensive to
support and limit their flexibility in meeting future needs. The implementation
of standard 802.11-compliant networks would have avoided these problems.